Legal Opinion
Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan.
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided November 8, 1999No. Civ.A. 99-2106-KHVPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
VRATIL and MURGUIA, District Judges.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition For Damages (Doc. # 29) filed July 1, 1999, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For reasons stated below, defendants’ motion is sustained in part and denied in part.
Motions To Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)
In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must assume as true all well pleaded facts in plaintiffs’ complaint and view them in a light most favorable to plaintiffs. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S.…
2Cases cited105 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
100 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, KSCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- Brooks v. SaucedaDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2000
- Jones v. WildgenDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2004
- Spookyworld, Inc. v. Town of Berlin (In Re Spookyworld, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 2001
- Demster v. CITY OF LENEXA, KANSASDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2005
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.